Thunder - 2014 Contact Issues

[Fbody383]

If you watch this vid https://vimeo.com/110745842 (the reason I want this rule changed - straw that broke the camels back per say), you will see I was being very patient. My moves were deliberate and low risk. I cannot know that another driver does not see me.

I watched several of the videos and come to a different conclusion.

At the downhill entrance to T9 the 24 and 32 are side by side, and remain so through the corner. And, in fact, the 24 maintains a very tight line track left. At the end of T9, the 32 goes 4 off track right, with the 70 nearly along side the 32, though still trailing the 24 at this point.

My initial thought, and the one that still prevails is that the 24 is farther track left than preferred solely as a consequence of leaving the 32 "racing room" into and through the middle of T9. It was also apparent to me at the outset that the 24 would soon be coming across track to the right to establish his racing line into T10.

I believe the 24 initiated the turn-in to T10 (the leading car taking the racing line) prior to the 70 establishing position alongside the 24 - roughly at 1:54 of the 70 video - and that Figure 6 of Appendix A in the CCR is a reasonable description of fault, save there did not appear to be locked wheels in our example.

Perhaps (though I remain unconvinced) a 1 car or 1 car plus 6" racing room requirement (if executed by the 24) would have changed the outcome.

If I were king:
1) Car 24 some fault for not knowing car 70 was sufficiently close with no apparent move made to reduce risk of potential contact
2) Car 70 some fault for causing contact to the 65 by failing to control the car/aborted pass attempt on the 24

and since I would be a benevolent king, I would consider input from experienced, wise advisors.

I admit I struggle with the competitive aspects of taking advantage of another car who is now at a disadvantage to me, simply because he was giving room to another car. In my opinion, if the 24 had simply stayed closer to the 32 througout T9, there would not have been room for the 70.

I will add some of my perspective. At MSRC I was frustrated by my perception of the lack of pace by the 77. And it's an unfamiliar track to me. I was impatient, locked up the front of the car and failed to control the car going off, failed to maintain control and did significant damage to the 39 and 77 when returning to track. If I remember correctly, and if I don't Al/Glenn/Adrian can post it here, I was offered a DQ or 4 race probation where any contact would result in a DQ. I chose the probation.

I yield the balance of my time and reserve the right to learn, adjust, and clarify my position.

[Fbody383]

Also - do we need to start performing visibility checks on drivers cars to ensure they have sufficient visibility in their mirrors behind and on the side?

Could certainly be a driver's meeting checklist item:
a) is your safety gear still in good shape?
b) is your car safe?
c) can you see out of it?
d) can you get out of it?

And we usually have enough people on grid to wave somebody down and get an outside mirror adjusted before a session.

[AllZWay]

I hate to discuss specifics for fear of making someone mad, but honestly I would have assumed the 24 would be coming to the apex of the turn, since he was only out there because the 32 had been beside him. He probably was unaware at that time that 32 wasn't still there.

I don't blame Glenn for testing to see if Bryan would give room or not, but I would have been pretty concerned about him cutting to the apex since that is just about the only way through that turn.

[Trublu]

I wish a benevolent king would ease the burden of a lowly serf who's wagon is at the blacksmiths forge to be straightened

[Fbody383]

I wish a benevolent king would ease the burden of a lowly serf who's wagon is at the blacksmiths forge to be straightened

Benevolence translateth not into riches, good sir. I remind thee that thine own chariot of competition lay hobbled at the fore. HUZZAH!

I hate to discuss specifics for fear of making someone mad...

I think we are at a good point where people are listening, even if the truth hurts. Good opportunity to have difficult discussions, keeping it about the conduct and not personal.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

[rleng1]

[QUOTE=Fbody383;70419]

I will add some of my perspective. At MSRC I was frustrated by my perception of the lack of pace by the 77. And it's an unfamiliar track to me. I was impatient, locked up the front of the car and failed to control the car going off, failed to maintain control and did significant damage to the 39 and 77 when returning to track.

Ok, so now you call me slow. As you might recall, it is only my 2nd year of racing, and a current Golden Helmet winner. So you need to know your drivers, be patient, and anticipate.
I agree with the room to race act.

[smitty328]

Wow, looks like I missed a lot at ECR!

When I started three years ago, people told me not to let my car anywhere near AI/CMC. I’m so glad I didn’t listen to them, I would say they were being a little dramatic. I managed to make it the first two years without any car to car contact. Yeah!!! And then there is this year…

I have been hit twice this year, it sucks, but I’m pretty much over it. The bad part is, there wasn’t a racing weekend this year where someone didn’t have some significant damage to their car. And I’d be willing to bet that there wasn’t a single racing day that there wasn’t some contact. Not to mention this year was the first time I have come around a corner and seen a friend of mine motionless in a smashed car. So yeah, if you’re an outsider looking in at AI/SI/CMC, stay the Hell away.

How do you fix it? I don’t know but I’m pretty sure getting rid of inverts won’t do much to help. I love inverts, I’d hate to see them go away. I think you can learn just as much (or more) from an invert than you can running with the front of the pack. I would love to see the ¾ car width rule go away, but that won’t fix it and neither will harsher penalties.

So again, how do we fix it? And again, I don’t know. BUT, I think “learning and discussion” could play a big role in getting this under control. When I flew for the airlines we were required to have recurrent training once a year. Part of this training was analyzing crashes, a little morbid, but a great training aide. It would be great if each Saturday after racing we could all hang around and drink beer while talking about racing. Oh wait, we already do that. I think this would be a great time for everyone to see any video of contact from the day’s races. Talk about a jury of your own peers! It’s also a chance to call someone out with video about a questionable move, nothing like watching a good fight on a Saturday night. :shock:

I don’t know how we would do this, I’m basically just throwing crap out there. There have been times when I have wondered if I made a questionable move or if someone else made a BS move on me. Just seems like a good time for people to learn something while having fun.

[BryanL]

Still holding my thoughts for later as I let this thread do its own thing........ but........
As the CCR is written, the overtaking car with rights to position must place the car 1/4 car width (1/4CW) in the dirt prior to contact before any fault is assigned to the lead car. Why can't we as a series (or a region via a Texas supplemental addition) change this to be that the overtaking car should be willing to leave the racing surface with at least 1/4CW, but the lead car that caused the deviation can be held accountable via a post race penalty? This way contact is avoided and the driver leaving the surface is more willing to do so knowing that the car that caused the issue can have a protest filed against them post race. The offending driver can then be placed behind the driver who left the racing surface to avoid an incident as long as there is sufficient evidence to support said protest.

Earlier it was mentioned that there was a lack of patients from the rear of the field during inverts.
If you watch this vid https://vimeo.com/110745842 (the reason I want this rule changed - straw that broke the camels back per say), you will see I was being very patient. My moves were deliberate and low risk. I cannot know that another driver does not see me. If we always assume we are not seen, then all passes are low risk. At some level, faith has to be placed in the hands of our fellow drivers to know what is going on around them. Low corner exit speed due to compromised entry/exit and offline entry to the following corner should be reason for assuming your about to get passed, particularly on an inverted start race.
So this is the reason I want this rule changed. I received more damage from trying to avoid contact than if I had stood my ground. The resulting loss of control caused contact w/ me and another driver that was very very bad for him. There was zero penalty for the driver that caused it per the CCR. In the future if the CCR stay (or our rules) the same, I'll take the contact, do the paperwork and risk the DQ. I don't need to put my car on a frame machine for a DQ. A DQ does not cause me to write checks to a body shop. ......rant off......
All of this is good and well, but none of it fixes the lack of awareness that can cause accidents the same as lack of patients.

Here is a video from another car that appears to have a more straight ahead viewing angle rather than the one posted above which is skewed to the left. This is from R4 at ECR-you can fast forward to the 2:00 minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeKRdEeErCI

[AllZWay]

BTW.. I have had my share of incidents, mistakes and near misses, so I am certainly not casting stones anyone's way. We do often have to make a split second decision and we will not choose correctly every time.

[GlennCMC70]

I'm very confident there would be rubber on the door here had I not lifted and moved right 1/2 a car: